David Nutt tells it how it is and is sacked

[Jux]

So the Government don't like it when one of their advisors actually takes notice of real evidence which doesn't quite accord with their stated policies (even though they say they want debate) and so sack the guy who says "but hang on...."

I don't think we should be asking ourselves that at all (at least not in relation to the drugs question). Taking drugs is not equivalent to throwing yourself out of a window. A better comparison would be getting on a rollercoaster, or eating oysters, or playing team sports - all these activities are (in varying degrees) risky and unnecessary but they do have some other aim in common other than doing oneself harm. They are recreational. I wouldn't smoke a joint because I wanted to harm myself any more than if I drank a glass of wine. I smoke because I enjoy it.

when we should be asking "why do people throw themselves out of first floor windows, and how can we help them not to do it

the majority of drug use is for fun, and has little negative effect - for a minority drug use is a means to self-destruct.

which is why i find the horse-riding comparison very apt. My mum, in her carefree youth, was a self-destructive horserider. most people don't get on a horse with a view to risking death - she did though. Most people don't take drugs with a view to self-harm. some do,

one close friend was, in the course of time, dependent on ...

alchohol..LSD..Nicotine...caffeine...sugar..fat....weed....

the hardest issue to remedy was the food and nicotine (for reasons of availability) but...the underlying problem was her nhappiness. which took time to heal. Now, why does anyone think the potential for a prison sentence would have helped her in any way shape or form?

a prison sentence would, on the other hand,. potentially hindered her moving on in lfe, getting a job, a mortgage, insurance etc etc...

I'm not necessarily suggesting (never have) that people should automatically have a prison sentence for drug possession. There are plenty of other ways of dealing with it.

The ways for "dealing with it" (and I am assuming by that that you think drugs should be stopped) don't actually work though, in exactly the same way that prohibition didn't work. The inconsistency here is not in any way between illegal drugs and recreational pleasures, but between legal and illegal drugs, the best comparison is really between marijuana and alcohol, and by most measures if there were to be evidence based policy (which there very rarely is, because politicians, and to be honest the public in general don't really like, trust or understand evidence) on the basis of harm woudl be classified in similar ways, indeed alcohol might well be more controlled, given the amount of harm it is associated with.

I've not heard the speech in question, but as a risk manager (and with a public health background) it is my experience that people have a very very poor understanding of risk, both in terms of their personal behaviour and in general (ie about other people's behaviour). I think his comment that "Politicians believe that if they think something, it is true" probably applies to the majority of people to be honest.

Anyway I think the backlash to this decision, or at least the way it was executed will be considerable. The government (and this probably applies to most governments) makes a big deal of making the public sector (and those receiving grants etc) more and more evidence based (as it should) whilst in the main totally ignoring both research on policy (like avoiding restructuring, or trying things out before implementing them wholesale) and in practice. Pr Nutt may have been unusual in complaining so publicly (although bear in mind that Alan Johnson was not his boss - advisers are more like consultants on that basis), but there will be a lot of people who agree with his premise and share his frustrations.

Nutt's paper is on the King's College website. I haven't read it properly but I rather like this extract - what he describes as a conversation he has had many times with MPs. For me it really sums up the givt failure to truly grapple with the underlying premises of drugs policy and legislation:

MP: ?You can?t compare harms from a legal activity with an illegal one.?
Professor Nutt: ?Why not??
MP: ?Because one?s illegal.?
Professor Nutt: ?Why is it illegal??
MP: ?Because it?s harmful.?
Professor Nutt: ?Don?t we need to compare harms to determine if it should be illegal??
MP: ?You can?t compare harms from a legal activity with an illegal one.?
repeats ?

At first I was outraged that Nutt was sacked - but I think it's opened up debate in a way that his sitting on the committee and quietly repeating his advice to govt (ad infinitum) never could. so maybe it's not such a bad thing.

EdgarAllenPoo - I said "common sense too", i.e. in addition to, but separate from, the science and stats that are already part of the equation. i.e. there are several elements that need to be there, because none alone are sufficient: stats, science, and common sense. None are exclusive to the others.

Lazyemma - it is a good point as it illustrates that statistics don't tell the whole story. The fact that more people do one than the other actually serves to illustrate her point that comparisons of murder or car travel are about as sensible as comparisons of drugs and horse-riding. So your post really just helps to illustrate that point further, by pointing out that the comparison is a nonsense.

My point wasn't that more people do one thing than the other. it was that, as a proportion of the total number of people who use the roads, the number of people who die doing so is very, very small. Whereas 100% of people who are murdered, are dead. Do you see.

(by the way, hatwoman - apologies - I've only just noticed that you made this exact point only a little further up the thread)

why do people on this thread think that very few people take drugs?

10% of the adult population smokes weed regularly.

which is a larger portion that equestrians.

and the percentage of drug users harmed by their use, is less than the percentage of horseriders harmed by their use - this is why it was a fair comparison.

you seem to be implying that though horse riding harms a few, it is a more common activity. This is not the case.

EAP - I also know far more people who regularly take drugs (or used to before I became a saddo got married and had kids) than who horse ride. I also know more people who have fallen off horses/been injured by horses than who have come a cropper after said drug taking.
I think the comparison is quite apt. My cousin who does both (and takes anything uner the sun) has had her nose, jaw, leg and wrist broken by equestrian related activities but never had any ill effects from drugs.

It's an interesting idea that one can actually tell, after say 10-20 years of taking drugs, whether one has had any damage or not. Just because you don't fall spectacularly on to the ground and break your collar-bone, doesn't mean it is "harmless".

Except that (with the exception of ecstacy and some of the other more recently manufactured drugs), most of them have been around for donkey's years. Opium, cocaine, weed - at least 100 years.

Anyway, Prof Nutt's point is that you can't say they are more dangerous than alcohol/cigarettes. We have huge proof that they are extremely harmful. And yet they are legal. So the classification is a nonsense.

I'm not interested in cigarettes. Tobacco is harmful, of course it is. If I get into that, I will probably be too emotive about it to look at it objectively.

So, what about alcohol, which I like? If I buy a bottle of wine, I can get it from a reputable shop. It's controlled so I know what is in it. If it turns out to contain meths, I have recourse to Trading Standards. I know that drinking alcohol to excess is probably not good for me, which is why I don't. If (a) I drink it in moderation, and (b) it is what it says on the bottle, and (c) I am able to moderate my intake, I know I am not going to come to any terrible harm through it. You cannot necessarily guarantee (a), (b) or (c) with other drugs. That's not an argument for legalisation, either.

I just think that people love these arguments about the supposed relative levels of harm because they are hugely convenient, and they can use them as a stick to bash what they perceive as the more Daily-Mail-wielding elements of society who want to stop them from having fun. I don't totally buy it. If you were able to convince every 20-year-old in the country overnight that ecstasy was totally safe and not likely to fuck them up, it would suddenly stop being "edgy" and "cool" and they'd stop taking it. The fact that this guarantee cannot be provided is partly what gives it its allure. Not the fact that it's safer than equestrianism, or any other comparison you want to make.

I don't think that's true from my experience. In my yoof, most people I knew didn't take ecstacy because it was edgy and cool but because it made them feel happy and in love with the world. And a lot less likely to have a punch up than they might with a couple of pints of fighting beer inside them!

Well UnquietDad I think that you have provided the normal argument for legalisation there. Most people I know who have partaken of illegal drugs were adults at the time and did/do so for exactly the same reason as you enjoy a bottle of wine. For most of the points you mention it is possible to at least partially follow your guidance, ie I enjoy a bit of puff every now and then. I am informed as to the health risks of this, I don't smoke very much and I only use a recommended supplier. I'd much prefer it to be legal though, because of the links to organised crime (although this can also be avoided by growing your own, or buying from a friend).

Thanks Hatwoman - the full paper is available at www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/estimatingdrugharms.html. It's a good measured, quite academic and yet fairly accessible paper. It seems to me somewhat bizarre that it's author should have been sacked, as it is really not terribly polemic, and indeed the opinions are fairly mainstream - I've heard a few Drugs and Alcohol advisers with very similar views. I'm not surprised he was very angry to have been sacked over this, or that his colleagues should have followed suit. Yes there is some criticism of the political process over the last 10 years, but there is some praise too, and the main point about including alcohol and cigarettes when thinking about illegal drugs use is also fairly mainstream. Addiction services have looked at both issues (concurrent abuse of both alcohol and drugs is very common) for many years, and most youth education does so too.

"So, what about alcohol, which I like? If I buy a bottle of wine, I can get it from a reputable shop. It's controlled so I know what is in it. If it turns out to contain meths, I have recourse to Trading Standards. I know that drinking alcohol to excess is probably not good for me, which is why I don't. If (a) I drink it in moderation, and (b) it is what it says on the bottle, and (c) I am able to moderate my intake, I know I am not going to come to any terrible harm through it. You cannot necessarily guarantee (a), (b) or (c) with other drugs. That's not an argument for legalisation, either."

...but it is, as nooka says! Whether you want it to be or not. The main problems with most drugs, both in terms of the other criminal activities involved in their production and supply, and the quality of the final product, are ones that arise from their illegality.

UQD - I would disagree about the 'edgy' and 'cool' thing. I took them because they are FUN and as lazyEmma and Nooka have said surely you have come out with a very good reason for legalisation and legislation.
The cousin though (Isuspect) did them because she thought it was edgy and cool and then foundout they were fun and carried on

UQD - History suggests you are an interesting person to 'talk' to in general, but I have to say on this particular subject, your are woefully ignorant, as obvious from this sentence:

"If you were able to convince every 20-year-old in the country overnight that ecstasy was totally safe and not likely to fuck them up, it would suddenly stop being "edgy" and "cool" and they'd stop taking it."

You clearly have no idea just how FUN it is to have a night out on ecstasy. They don't call it that for no reason, you know. It is cheap, it makes you feel very happy, with incredible energy, dancing all night long, talking to strangers with joy. In comparison, alcohol does very little socially but makes people aggressive and prone to trip over their own feet.

I'm used to not being able to convince the drug-posse. It doesn't bother me.

Is it that odd that publicaly contradicting your employer should get you sacked? And is it an argument for legalising one drug that it is less harmful than another which is deeply entrenched in culture but that perhaps should be more controlled? I would more be impessed by his brave stand if he hadn't semed to expect that there would be no come back. Sometimes you have to pay for following your convictions ... man up.

Except that he wasn't employed by AJ, but an independent adviser. And he isn't arguing for legalisation, but for a more evidence based approach to drugs classification. And as an academic psychiatrist part of his (real paid) job is to speak at lectures, write papers etc.

"problem with smoking cannabis is you need a drug dealer, and dealers will try and sell you harder drugs to make more money out of you"

what rubbish.

Not disputing that there are pushers out there, but Dealers or whatever you want to call them don't spend their time pushing other drugs on people.

"prolonged use of cannabis leads to serious mental health problems..."

isn't this exactly what David Nutt is saying is a false assumprion?

People should also consider the fact that cannabis and ecstasy and and all the other drugs, fund organised crime. I've only recently left university, so a lot of people I know smoke weed recreationally. Most of them have no idea who actually grows it. It's nice to think it's a nice person who is sticking it to the man, but it's not. It's not very nice people using the money they make from weed profits to produce/import/manufacture other, more dangerous drugs, which in turn fund other crimes.
Of all the drug users I know (recreational or otherwise) only 2 know exactly where their weed came from, and that is because they grow it themselves for personal use. Another friend used to buy it wholesale, and sell it on to others, keeping some for himself. The people he got it from were not pleasant individuals.
If the classification of drugs is based only on the physical and psychological harm it causes an individual, then Prof. Nutt is totally right to speak out, but if it is based not only on this, but on the indirect damages they can cause, and the other crimes they can be linked to, then he has less of a point.

RE people taking drugs. I would say that a good 50%, if not more, of my friends and social circle have taken or do take drugs. That's not because I take drugs and so naturally am in that kind of circle because I don't. I have taken various drugs in the past but no longer do. I still meet people every week who take drugs recreationally or have enjoyed some drug or other in the past.

UQD why do you call people who have a different attitude or belief about drugs 'the drug posse'?

"The people he got it from were not pleasant individuals."

who were they?